SERVICE: Contents
OUTCOME: Not upheld
Issues: Delays
Summary: Ms H’s* complaint was not upheld, because the insurer had agreed to provide a reasonable claim settlement that was fair in all the circumstances.
Ms H had insurance for her house.
In April 2011, Ms H discovered contents had been stolen from the house following her evacuation after the Christchurch Earthquakes (the loss).
Ms H made a claim for the loss.
Between 2011 and 2024, IAG asked Ms H to complete a claim form and provide information to establish what contents had been stolen.
Ms H made a complaint on the basis that the insurer had not settled the claim. She requested a fair settlement based on the information she had already provided to the insurer over the years. Ms H said all her contents had been stolen and a payment of the sum insured of $62,000 reflected her loss.
The case manager’s assessment
Due to the historical nature of the claim, the case manager sought Ms H’s consent to request relevant information from third-party organisations. Ms H provided consent which led to new and relevant information becoming available.
Based on the available information, the case manager found that not all of Ms H’s contents were stolen from her house in 2011. Evidence established many contents were still in the house when she moved to temporary accommodation in May 2011. However, the new information established some contents were stolen from her garage in 2011.
The information also confirmed that Ms H had never provided the insurer with a claim form or information to progress the claim, between 2011 and 2024. The case manager said the insurer’s ongoing request for this information was reasonable before making any claim payment to Ms H.
The case manager said the onus was on Ms H, as the customer, to establish a valid claim under the policy. The available information confirmed Ms H had not met her policy obligation to provide the insurer with the information it has requested over many years. However, the case manager acknowledged that Ms H’s personal circumstances made it difficult for her to be able to provide the information the insurer requested.
The case manager said that, in the particular circumstances of this matter, the Police Report could be used to form the basis of a claim payment for some of the garage contents. An insurer would generally require additional information for proof of ownership and value, but the case manager felt it was appropriate to use the Police Report in Ms H’s particular circumstances, to bring finality to the claim.
The insurer agreed to make a claim payment to Ms H of $2,500 for the stolen garage contents, less the relevant excess. The case manager confirmed this was a fair outcome to the claim.
*Name has been changed.
Complaint No: 00230308